Supporters of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul raised more than $6 million in 24 hours.

Called a "Money Bomb," the goal was to raise as much money as possible on the Internet in one day. The campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million.

At midnight EST, donations were over $6 million, according to the campaign Web site. Those donations are processed credit card receipts, said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton.

Benton said the median donation is about $50 in the fundraiser, which was the idea of Paul supporters who are not officially connected to the campaign.

Trevor Lyman, a Paul supporter who is traveling the country following the Ron Paul blimp, said the date of the fundraiser coincides with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Watch supporters raise cash at a Boston Tea Party »

The Ron Paul blimp is an aerial billboard emblazoned on one side with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul." The other side reads "Ron Paul Revolution."

The blimp, another grass-roots effort, was in Chester, South Carolina, on Sunday, and organizers hope to get it to New Hampshire before the January 8 primary there. E-mail to a friend

Notice the first line of the piece:

Ron Paul's supporters raised over $6 million

Not, "Ron Paul's campaign" or "Ron Paul recieved X million from corporation Y", but normal people that want Ron Paul to win, got other
"normal" people to contribute small sums of cash to help someone win the Presidency.

If you're tired of big government, if you're tired of lobbying groups controlling government, if you're tired of the standard operating procedure in Washington then vote Ron Paul!

I was planning to be in Boston for that. Unfortunately the storm kept us at home. This is the first time that I have ever been passionate about a candidate. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to bash a man who is simply honest and firm in his fight for our return to liberty and the constitution.

Menoly wrote:I was planning to be in Boston for that. Unfortunately the storm kept us at home. This is the first time that I have ever been passionate about a candidate. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to bash a man who is simply honest and firm in his fight for our return to liberty and the constitution.

When he states he thinks the Government should investigate who did 9/11 it tells me there is no way he should ever be President let alone in Congress and that is the nut root groups he decided to cater to.

I was planning to be in Boston for that. Unfortunately the storm kept us at home. This is the first time that I have ever been passionate about a candidate. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to bash a man who is simply honest and firm in his fight for our return to liberty and the constitution.

The man is a nice guy - Ross Perot was a nice guy. I'm betting Ross Perot can run a government because he already did run a corporation bigger than many other countries governments.

However - as enthusiastic as I was for Mr Perot in my youth - I wouldn't look at him twice now.

Ron Paul is the same kind of person. His FOLLOWERS are going to drive America crazy - not just the man.

I’ve been cataloging my quest to settle on a GOP Presidential candidate to support in 2008 (so far I’ve stick with Fred Thompson mainly by default). I took on McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Tancredo in this post. I went back to make the case against Huckabee in more detail in this post. With Andrew Sullivan having endorsed Ron Paul, it’s the latter’s turn. Unlike Andrew, I’m afraid I can’t work up any enthusiasm for Paul.

1. As Michael Medved observed, Paul’s campaign has attracted “an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.” It may not be a case of birds of a feather, but it’s at least a case of lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas. Moreover, “the behavior of Ron Paul supporters (spamming blogs that reference their candidate with fund-raising appeals and flaming anyone who actually dares to express substantive disagreement) frequently alienates far more potential friends than it attracts.” (Link) You’ll almost certainly find some flames in the comments to this post!

2. Not puss-out of Iraq (for it or not, we're there now, let's finish it right)

3. LOWER MY GOD DAMNED TAXES, a LOT.

(minor issues)

1. protect marriage as man + woman, but allow civil unions for whoever the hell wants one (I think of it as a domestic corporation, nothing more nothing less)

2. not allow a 2rd trimester and beyond feti to be aborted (hey, there's birth control, and plennnntttyyyy of time to make a decision, pregnancy gets that far, and the little critter should at least get a chance to fuck up his or her own life)

3. Legal weed (yeah right, in a perfect world)

4. Legal hookers (see item 3)

that's it pretty much....whoever gets my vote MUST have 3 out of 3 on the majors, and any of the minors would be nice.

MERRY CHRISTMAS! "Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson today, upon hearing that rival Ron Paul’s supporters had raised $6 million in 24 hours to commemorate the Boston Tea Party, called on his supporters to match that figure in gun purchases before Christmas to mark George Washington’s victory at the Battle of Trenton."

When he states he thinks the Government should investigate who did 9/11 it tells me there is no way he should ever be President let alone in Congress and that is the nut root groups he decided to cater to.

Source? Oh wait, i found one:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.htmlReason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.

So, he actually states that there is no evidence that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government and that means he shouldn't be President? Awesome. Glad you researched the only person who is actually suggesting we slay the C'thulu like bureacracy beast in Washington.

Bigfatbino wrote:I don't give a shit about the prez election yet. Too busy with the Peoples Republic of Hawaii bullshit right now..

....which candidate will :(major issues)1. SECURE the FUCKING borders

2. Not puss-out of Iraq (for it or not, we're there now, let's finish it right)

3. LOWER MY GOD DAMNED TAXES, a LOT.

(minor issues)

1. protect marriage as man + woman, but allow civil unions for whoever the hell wants one (I think of it as a domestic corporation, nothing more nothing less)

2. not allow a 2rd trimester and beyond feti to be aborted (hey, there's birth control, and plennnntttyyyy of time to make a decision, pregnancy gets that far, and the little critter should at least get a chance to fuck up his or her own life)

3. Legal weed (yeah right, in a perfect world)

4. Legal hookers (see item 3)

that's it pretty much....whoever gets my vote MUST have 3 out of 3 on the majors, and any of the minors would be nice.

Bino you should see my campaign for 2012 I still need a Undersecretary of Defense you know.

Let me take on this guys first 5 points (because they rest hurt my head):

1) Ad hominem attack. The guy himself might not be bad, but the people he's hanging around with certainly are. Let me think, is there anyone else who hung out with sinners all the time and couldn't get a break by the "establishment"? Yes I can, his name was Jesus. This first one has absolutely no bearing on anything and is the dumbest type of attack.

2) False Dilemma attack.. Either we stay and fight or we cut and run are not the only two options and the fact that anyone thinks they are, show how brainwashed they are. "1+1=4 or 1+1=12. 1+1 does not equal 4, so 1+1 must equal 12. Get on board people!"

It is also an exaggeration, it's source material is itself an exaggeration. Basically it's a hyperbole citing a hyperbole. Here's the link where all the hubub came from http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul4.html; our interventionist policies certainly do have blowback, to think otherwise would be insanity (blowback = unintended consequences). This is not only blatantly obvious, but it's logically unavoidable (look up criticisms for utilitarianism)

3) Ad himoniem attack. Dr. Paul has steadfastly maintained that the US Constitution is the sole source of authority and sovreignty for the US; which is factually correct. No one, not even the President, can engage in a "dialogue" that would undermine US Sovreignty on it's own soil.

4) Is just plain dumb. The source for the assertion that Dr. Paul isn't a conservative is "Dr. Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative (point #1)." WTF, that's just stupid. Libertarian's are conservative, conservative's are conservative. It doesn't matter if we all wear green hats or not, it's that we all dislike the government, think the free market can do a better job and want to decrease taxes.

5) The Club for Growth doesn't even come close to suggesting that Dr. Paul is apork-spending lover. Dr. Paul voted for Federal Election reform and against line-item veto (something that isn't in the Constitution). What the Club for Growth report actually says is, "On taxes, regulation, and political speech, his record is superb. His spending record is impressive." Geez, sample bias much?

Here, let me try some of the exact same tactics on Wenceslas...

The case against Wenceslas

1) Wenceslas is a good guy, but he hangs out with Person X & Y (who we all know are scumbags). Therefore, we shouldn't hang out with Wenceslas - "lay down with a dog, get up with fleas" you know...

2) Wenceslas, said "We'll either charge in and fight them all or we'll all die" Is this the kind of person that you want leading a group? (why couldn't we pull a mob at a time to us? Why couldn't we pull some of them and mez while we fight? etc.)

3) Wenceslas is into crack-pot theories like the sun is in the sky and grass is green. Is that the type of person you want running the show?

4) Wenceslas says that he is a spell caster, but is he really? I mean he carries a weapon, wears armor and has hit mobs in the past with non-melee damage. I call shenanigans!

5) Wenceslas is quoted as once saying "F**K YOU Karadin" This suggests that he has no respect for our great leader and that he wants to tear down Noble Blade. Is that the type of person we want in our guild?

See how dumb that is?

Xanai

Last edited by Xanai on December 18th, 2007, 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dr Paul believes in the absolute sovreignty of the US. I'd say he'd do well on this issue. +1 for Dr. Paul here.

2. Not puss-out of Iraq (for it or not, we're there now, let's finish it right)

Dr. Paul does want to "puss-out" of Iraq. So this is a -1, it's a biggie though so let's make it a -2.

3. LOWER MY GOD DAMNED TAXES, a LOT.

Dr. Paul wins this one in a land-slide. +1

1. protect marriage as man + woman, but allow civil unions for whoever the hell wants one (I think of it as a domestic corporation, nothing more nothing less)

Dr. Paul says it's not the Federal government's job. So it's up to the states (or maybe no government at all!). +1 here.

not allow a 2rd trimester and beyond feti to be aborted (hey, there's birth control, and plennnntttyyyy of time to make a decision, pregnancy gets that far, and the little critter should at least get a chance to fuck up his or her own life)

Again, not up the federal government, it would be up to the states. Dr. Paul, a gynecologist btw, is also strongly against abortion. +1 here.

Legal weed (yeah right, in a perfect world)

Again, not up the federal government, it would be up to the states. Dr. Paul is very strongly against the "war on drugs" and thinks weed should be legal. +1 here.

Legal hookers (see item 3)

Again, not up the federal government, it would be up to the states. +1 here.

whoever gets my vote MUST have 3 out of 3 on the majors, and any of the minors would be nice.

All of the other candidates say they're strong on all 3 of them, but I'd say they're pretty wishy-washy on 1 & 3; otherwise they'd have made a big deal out of it by now. On the otherhand, Dr. Paul has been honest and upfront about all of his beliefs (hence why people call him a whacko) and is in favor of 2 out of 3 (and all your minors).

When he states he thinks the Government should investigate who did 9/11 it tells me there is no way he should ever be President let alone in Congress and that is the nut root groups he decided to cater to.

Source? Oh wait, i found one:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.htmlReason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.

So, he actually states that there is no evidence that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government and that means he shouldn't be President? Awesome. Glad you researched the only person who is actually suggesting we slay the C'thulu like bureacracy beast in Washington.

Xanai

Okay lets read EXACTLY what I and he have stated.

1. He has stated he is open to a new investigation to determine who is responsible for 9/11. Your quote there also does not say he denies it, but that he stated he does not see the evidence now to support that position, hence he plays to these nut roots by stating he is open to a new investigation. Let me say this again. He still believes there should be a new investigation into 9/11 and who did. In other words he likes to leave open the opportunity for the nut roots out there. Understand how that works?

Lets put it this way. For me any Candidate who does not believe that Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 and will not state so explicitly should not be in office in my opinion and again Rep. Paul is one of those.

He has stated he is open to a new investigation to determine who is responsible for 9/11.

He, and everyone else on the planet, knows who is responsible for 9/11. The real sticking point with lots of people is why did Al-Qaeida attack us? It's not like they grabbed a phone book and started hating alphabetically. How did our close allies of just 20 years ago all of a sudden start bombing our civilian targets? If you think there's an easy answer to be found there, you're sadly mistaken.

Your quote there also does not say he denies it, but that he stated he does not see the evidence now to support that position, hence he plays to these nut roots by stating he is open to a new investigation

It's hard to believe, but our government officials get elected by pandering to their constituency. "Pandering to their constituency" also means "listening to the people who sent him there." It's how they get their jobs in the first place. You're upset with him for listening to the people in his district? You're right, we should never put a man in office that will actually listen to the concerns of the populace - it takes an Emperor to run an Empire!

For me any Candidate who does not believe that Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 and will not state so explicitly should not be in office in my opinion and again Rep. Paul is one of those.

So the US government had absolutely nothing, what-so-ever, to do with 9/11? Our military couldn't have taken Bin Laden out earlier? Our intelligence couldn't have discovered the plot? Any one of our secret police organizations (CIA, NSA, etc.) didn't egg him on (like when Bush Sr told the Iraqi's to revolt after the Kuwait war and when they did like we asked we let them all be massacred?) Everyone knows that Bin Laden is responsible, he told us himself that he planned the attack. The question is: why?

It's hard to believe, but our government officials get elected by pandering to their constituency. "Pandering to their constituency" also means "listening to the people who sent him there." It's how they get their jobs in the first place. You're upset with him for listening to the people in his district? You're right, we should never put a man in office that will actually listen to the concerns of the populace - it takes an Emperor to run an Empire!

Sorry , thought part of your problem was not wanting specialty lobbyist to run the government. I believe that is where they are placing the said nutjobs......

And I also believe its fanatical actions like your exhibiting .... that is giving people pause. No polotican goes to office with out a hidden agenda , and with out pandering to those who got them into office. If he is saying this much openly... and his supporters are this.... eerie.....

Dr. Paul says it's not the Federal government's job. So it's up to the states (or maybe no government at all!). +1 here.

Wow, the guy's read the Tenth Amendment. I'm impressed.

At what point did the American people lay down their local and state governments and look to the federal government as the remedy for all their problems? In Jefferson's age, a man would have introduced himself as a Virginian or a New Yorker before he'd introduce himself as an American. Likewise, I've always regarded myself as a Texan first and an American second. It seems Dr. Paul holds a similar view.

Sorry , thought part of your problem was not wanting specialty lobbyist to run the government. I believe that is where they are placing the said nutjobs......

I don't know what this means. Care to rephrase?

And I also believe its fanatical actions like your exhibiting ....

So if someone doesnt' understand a person's position and I clarify, that's fanatical actions? Or if someone clearly mistates a person's position and I argue for a fair view, that's fanatical? When did truth = fanatical? I've pointed out Dr. Paul's position, others have came up with lame attempts at attacking him and I corrected them ("he hangs out with bad people, therefore he's probably a bad person!" wtf?). Or is it just my vociferous style?

No polotican goes to office with out a hidden agenda , and with out pandering to those who got them into office. If he is saying this much openly... and his supporters are this.... eerie....

I'm sorry that you think living in an unConstitutional, illegal welfare state is an ok thing. I'm sorry that you want to give government more power instead of less. Dr. Paul's agenda is clear: shut down the federal government. The fact that your attacking his method instead of his merit just goes to show how amazingly schewed some people's view points are.

Argue with me that the Federal Govt., as we have it now, is Constitutional. Argue with me that Congress has the authority to give it's power to print money to a private organization. Argue with me that the taxes we have now are either "apportioned" or "indirect" (the only types of taxes the Constitution allows). Argue with me that the Constitution gives the federal goverment the power to station troops in more than 150 countries around the world. Argue with me that we should even have a standing federal army, according to the Constitution. But please, take this weak-sauce about his methods or his supporters or "he's libertarian, he's not conservative!" out to the muthertruckin garbage.

Everyone knows that the term "general welfare" means that anything that Congress wants to do it is empowered to do so by the Constitution and that the 10th Amendment basically just doesn't apply to anything. If the founders of our country would have wanted to keep something out of the hands of the Federal government they would have written somewhere in the Constitution that "any power not given to the Federal government is reserved for the private citizens or the individual states." Since they didn't write that, it's obvious they wanted a massive Federal government.